Definition of War Weariness

os79

os79

Deity
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,095
Location
Eastern USA Coast
With all respect due to a poster in Bug and Feedback Thread, I need to clarify and open up a short discussion about this. So that B & F T can stay on topic for the sake of other posters.

War Weariness is broken into two different words that brought together mean one crucial thing.

War=Anytime a civ and another civ can move into each other's territory in order to invade or raze each other's cities. No trading is occurring at that time. It has its pros and cons, to be discussed below.

Weariness=The mental state where one doesn't want to do anything because of depletion of energy in one way or another.

Brought together=War weariness means in civ terms that citizen(s) in cities are unwilling to work on tiles. The amount of citizens not working depeonds on civics and buildings at that moment. Therefore with low population and insufficient happiness modifier(s) in hand, the city can be rendered non-functional.

The players' strategies of reducing war weariness from impacting their cities vary and will be discussed in this thread (hopefully). But this can not be blamed on Afforess unless Afforess specifically recognized and is planning on eliminating improper calculation of war weariness. Therefore, we as the players should learn from other players how to stave off the consequences of war weariness.

Very significantly, we also must be ready to have sufficient military strength to convince other AIs to make war(s) shorter. It can be shortened by at least two things that I know of. #1 The third party intervene and ask that we make peace. #2 We destroy the civ's military sufficiently that we can demand the end of the war ourselves.

Any more comments or opinions, please discuss. No personal attacks please. This thread is here to help any person who want to succeed in this game (notice! game! fun, right!? :D)

Well...
DISCUSS AWAY! :D
 
i usually don't start wars but wait until some AI brings its doom upon itself. ... and i seldom end a war until my enemy is ready to capitulate. and if i start a war it's over just after a few turns.

this said i do not remember to have seen any war weariness in my games.
 
digitCruncher said:
Um...

Are you complaining about WW or not? I just realised: Fighting on soil which is 100% yours contributes to 0 WW on your behalf. You can fight against the entire world, lose all your army, and kill all of thier armies, but if it is on home soil, the people will realize it is for there very survival, and thus not complain. So to defend against WW before Jails etc., simply fight on your own turf. (If it is owned by 90% you, and 10% someone else, then you get around 10% of the WW)

However, if you fight on enemy ground, WW stacks up reasonably quickly. Losing your unit on foriegn soil in an attack gives +3 WW. Killing a unit on foriegn soil in an attack (IE. you win an attack) gives you +1 WW (IE. Killing units INCREASES War Weariness). Defending gives you +2 WW regardless of winning or losing. I think razing or capturing a city gives something like +10WW, and nukes give +5 WW if you launch the nuke, and +20 if you defend. The non-combat WW values are approximate. But in general, if you bring the fight to them, you WILL be hit with WW.

And WW keeps on. Although it slowly disappears over times of peace, it never disappears completely. It isn't realistic to commit horrible atrocities against human decency and human rights, settle peace for 5 years, and start it up again and expect your people to be all good with the same war...

There are techniques to manage WW. Civ IV is a managerial game, and if you are not willing to manage your empire, balancing it's needs and wants effectively, then play another game! But that is the beauty of Civ IV: You have to balance when to fight and when to defend, what civics to choose, how and where to build your cities... AND takes all these things and adds more! That is why I like it so much :D Is sacrificing national stability worth the reduction in WW? Do I attack and end the war, or defend and win a war of attrition due to their WW? Should I build a stronger military now, or focus on building up infrastructure? What type of economy do I want to follow? The only place where you don't manage your empire is on the battlefield (which is why I am looking forward to Civ V's One-unit-per-tile thing. Pity that Civ IV won't likely be balanced for it :( )
Click to expand...

so in other words if i never lose a unit i don't get any WW no matter what i do? and if i lose quite some battles in my own territory and this strange battle influence feature is on (winner spreads his culture on the tile) i'm screwed?

i think the WW feature is not compatible with the battle influence feature then.
 
Killtech said:
so in other words if i never lose a unit i don't get any WW no matter what i do? and if i lose quite some battles in my own territory and this strange battle influence feature is on (winner spreads his culture on the tile) i'm screwed?

i think the WW feature is not compatible with the battle influence feature then.
Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't think of that. You should bring that up in the RevDCM thread, it's a glaring problem.
 
No.

In short, if you are in enemy territory:

If you are attacking:
If you win: you get +1 WW [War weariness INCREASES]
If you lose: you get +3 WW​
If you are defending: You get a flat +2 WW

However, if you are in your own territory, it is classified as a 'fight for survival', and you don't get any War Weariness.

Mods with huge numbers of units (such as FFH, where I learned this after someone had crippling WW after killing over 150+ orcs in Orcish territory, and was slammed with huge WW problems) often have nasty WW problems.

In short:
so in other words if i never lose a unit i don't get any WW no matter what i do?
Click to expand...
No, you get +2 WW for each unit you kill while defending, and +1 WW for each unit you kill when attacking [Edit]In foriegn territory. In your own territory you never get WW regardless if you kill 100 units and lose a million[/Edit]

But yes, if you lose quite some battles in your own territory and this strange battle influence feature is on (winner spreads his culture on the tile), you do get big WW penalties (specifically, just under 2 for each battle you fight). This, and the fact that revolutions mod is incredably easy with it, I never play with it.
 
Killtech said:
so in other words if i never lose a unit i don't get any WW no matter what i do? and if i lose quite some battles in my own territory and this strange battle influence feature is on (winner spreads his culture on the tile) i'm screwed?

i think the WW feature is not compatible with the battle influence feature then.
Click to expand...

digitCruncher said:
But yes, if you lose quite some battles in your own territory and this strange battle influence feature is on (winner spreads his culture on the tile), you do get big WW penalties (specifically, just under 2 for each battle you fight). This, and the fact that revolutions mod is incredably easy with it, I never play with it.
Click to expand...

I think the question here is - what is war weariness?

It's a calculation used to determine how capable a nation is of maintaining it's war effort, the more war weary the population, the less productive the nation is and the harder it is to maintain a war. If you are defending or attacking in home territory or in some foreign land then both parties should feel the effects of war on the general population regardless of who's soil the battle takes place on.

Take the Iraq war as an example of the defender suffering war weariness more so than the attacker, several surveys of the Iraqi populace found that only 47% of the population supported attacking US troops, not a lot considering the USA was occupying Iraqi soil.

I think it's a good thing that if you are defending home soil and losing then naturally the population ends up feeling despondant and are more likely to be reluctant to fight, although the government ultimately decides when to capitulate the populace puts pressure on the government and it gets harder to maintain the supply chain etc...

I also think it's a good thing that losing a war on foreign soil is going to have a greater effect on war weariness - take the Vietnam war as a prime example.

In my opinion war weariness should effect the defender as well as the attacker. Losing a battle should effect the population back home regarless of whether you started the war or whether you are fighting off the advances of an aggressor.

Losing battles is bad for morale regardless of where the battle is lost, but it's effects are tenfold if you happen to lose that battle in some corner of a foreign field.
 
the soviets didn't get much WW as the germans invaded in WWII and they had very high losses. the more people fear the enemy the more they are determined to fight him. however this is not the point here anyway.

WW is a game mechanics feature and thus should not break the game. it would suck if the weaker defender would additionally be weakened by his own population and stood no chance against the already more powerful invader. it would give the defender no options to defend himself. and that's frustrating - so not a good game feature.

the battle influence feature should just destroy enemy culture on a tile rather then spread its own. it makes even more sense btw. as many cultural objects are lost in the destruction of wars. but i can't really see any reason why culture should be generated. why was this feature created anyway? what was the intention? anyone knows?
 
Killtech said:
the battle influence feature should just destroy enemy culture on a tile rather then spread its own. it makes even more sense btw. as many cultural objects are lost in the destruction of wars. but i can't really see any reason why culture should be generated. why was this feature created anyway? what was the intention? anyone knows?
Click to expand...
I think its purpose is to simulate changing borders in a war.
 
... oh that makes some sense. so it's a concept that directly conflicts with fixed borders and territory claiming.
 
Killtech said:
but i can't really see any reason why culture should be generated. why was this feature created anyway? what was the intention? anyone knows?
Click to expand...

Eh Killtech
Straight out of Moctezuma's readme:

Military units affect surroundings via combat influence:
After each combat between two units: some amount of culture accumulated in each square of combat area is transferred from loser player to winner player. This way I try to simulate effect of battle victory: some peoples have tendency to give up and flip to victorious side.

Rules:
· It works for both field battle and city assault.
· It works for both attacking and defending (also city defending).
· If victorious unit has warlord: combat influence is increased.
· If attacking unit withdraws: no culture transfer happens.
· Calculated culture exchange cannot be higher than loser's remaining culture in plot.
· No culture is exchanged during city bombardment

In other words it's talking about the people in the tile switching allegiance rather than the destruction of material cultural artifacts. I see the points about WW and IDW interacting. It doesn't seem to be a game killer to me, just that IDW can magnify the WW effect when critical battles go badly. Like all modifications to civ, each one will erode the game in some way as well as enhance it. It looks to me like IDW can in some cases escalate WW and also deteriorate the AI' performance as well. For example if there is a battle over a city and the attacker has much success in the field as well as on the city, the culture flip will be more pronounced and the attacker will hold onto the territory that much more easily. If the original owner tries to reclaim the city, not only will he have been hit for WW for loosing the city, but then in trying to reclaim it he get's hit again more than he would have without IDW (depending on which squares have flipped). It seems to me to be a matter of degree, complicated, siutational but not a large effect. It would seem that IDW tends to magnify the WW effect in some situations. Only a guess.

At this stage I personally am reluctant to modify IDW because of other unforeseen issues. It has already undergone some modification. It's a great idea that has endured the test of time. However if there is some clear path to improving it, by all means.

Cheers
 
oh, hehe. didn't read the readme. i guess there's too much to read with so many different mods, modmods and mod^3's. i just tested it practically and it seems it gives the conquerers a too great benefit in overpowering the enemy and assimilating his cities - thus reducing revolution problems since foreign culture creates unhappiness among others.

the culture conversion seems to happen far too fast too. most occupied capitals are usually heavy defended so when you conquer them you usually win the last n fights thus the city is nearly like you've founded it.

i think that a percentage culture loss for the loser and a static culture gain for the winner would be more appropriate - so highly cultured occupied cities become centers of resistance.
 
Killtech, there are a TON of global defines that allow you to customize Influence Driven War, or even turn it off:

Code: 
<!-- Influence Driven War -->
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_ENABLED</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_BASE_COMBAT_INFLUENCE</DefineName>
<!-- Higher value: more influence from combat victory -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>4.0</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_NO_CITY_DEFENDER_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- Multiply influence if last city defender dies -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>2.5</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_FORT_CAPTURE_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- Multiply influence if fort is captured in combat -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>2.0</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_EXPERIENCE_FACTOR</DefineName>
<!-- Increase influence due to experience of victorious unit (per experience point) -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>0.03</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_WARLORD_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- Multiply influence if warlord wins (works only in Warlords -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>1.3</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_INFLUENCE_RADIUS</DefineName>
<!-- Max plot distance to be influenced -->
		<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_PLOT_DISTANCE_FACTOR</DefineName>
<!-- Higher value: influence decreases faster with distance from attacker/defended plot -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>0.2</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_WINNER_PLOT_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- By default: the same influence mulitiplier in attacker and defended plot -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>1.0</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_LOSER_PLOT_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- By default: the same influence mulitiplier in attacker and defended plot -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>1.0</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_EMERGENCY_DRAFT_ENABLED</DefineName>
<!-- Enable/Disable militia "auto-draft"; works only if IDW_ENABLED = 1 -->
		<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_EMERGENCY_DRAFT_MIN_POPULATION</DefineName>
<!-- Minimal city size to draft militia -->
		<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_EMERGENCY_DRAFT_STRENGTH</DefineName>
<!-- Militia health ratio -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>0.25</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_EMERGENCY_DRAFT_ANGER_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- Draft anger from militia -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>0.5</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_NO_BARBARIAN_INFLUENCE</DefineName>
<!-- if 1: barbarian influence is disabled and no militia emerges in case of barbarian combat -->
		<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_NO_NAVAL_INFLUENCE</DefineName>
<!-- if 1: naval influence is disabled -->
		<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_PILLAGE_INFLUENCE_ENABLED</DefineName>
<!-- Enable/Disable influence from pillage; works only if IDW_ENABLED = 1 -->
		<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_BASE_PILLAGE_INFLUENCE</DefineName>
<!-- Higher value: more influence from pillage -->
		<fDefineFloatVal>2.0</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>IDW_CITY_TILE_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
<!-- Multiplier used to adjust cultural effect of IDW in city tiles, not used if emergency draft is enabled-->
		<fDefineFloatVal>0.2</fDefineFloatVal>
	</Define>

Perhaps they need to some adjusting?
 
thx, interesting. there are some settings. only problem is that none of the IDW tags allows to to do anything other then transfer culture from one player to another. there is no option to regulate winner and loser changes separately. the other problem is that they remain modifiers and can't be changed form this mechanics. this means that no matter what if you win n battles in a row you will get high culture - independently from how high the original culture value was.

best thing i could do is to make very different modifiers for 3 basic defense situations: city, fort and other tile. cities need to turn the modifier down a lot. one could try what happens if forts get a huge modifier if conquered so they might become strategic targets besides cities.

well, i'll play with them around.
 
Killtech, under what circumstances are you finding this to be a problem? Are you having problems maintaining an attack against the AI or another human or are you having problems being attacked by a human or AI?

I'm trying to see where the problem may be as the IDW and WW works just fine for me. What version of RoM & AND are you having the problems with, because i'm using RoM 2.91 with AND 1.73F and IMO in this version revolutions seem to happen much less and both the AI and myself can have much bigger Empires and can spam settlers without much of an effect plus the WW has not effected one single war yet on a number of games I've played.

The last time I saw WW have an effect was a couple of versions ago (the last stable MP version of RoM/AND) during a MP game. My neighbour was another human player and was technologically more advanced than me but he had a number of conquered AI cities under his control and I played for WW, hiding my units behind city walls and forts, being careful to harry his troops with expendable, outdated mounted units. They weakened his forces before he crippled himself attacking my well defended cities and before he knew it his conquered AI cities were revolting and his large empire practically fractured due to WW and a little help from my spies! This was proabably the most fun MP game we have played, because he needed a quick war and I needed to drag it out and bog it down, I attacked him and razed a city to start the war, but then sat back and defended.

I'm not sure if REV and WW still work the same but this for both him and me was a very good way of representing war, his civics were not really geared for war, but tech and I made sure I changed mine just before attacking him. My goal was to check the speed at which he was discovering tech before he became just too far advanced, it worked in the short term but his empire recovered and my biggest mistake was ending the war...
 
my problem is that IDW makes it too easy for me to conquer enemy cities and integrate them into my empire. in vanilla BtS i had to come up with a lot of culture buildings hurried with gold to SLOWLY compensate original culture and get the borders moving for my side.

as for WW i had never any problems with it. it just never occurred. then again if i fight in a war it's short and efficient with next to no loses. the reason i thought about WW and IDW could cause a problem was from my observation on my conquered victims. they usually lose unit after unit in their cities (so when i conquer them they have so much of my culture i do not even need to bother building culture buildings myself) and shortly afterwards all their cities are unhappy and start to rebel because of revolutions (i guess). and i'm left fighting without any real opposition. :(

as for the MP game you had: if the cities your human opponent conquered from AI were taken in a long fight (i.e. many defeated defending units) then the culture conversion of IDW could be so high that these cities would be like his own and thus never causing the unhappiness problems you talked about. WW seams to work fine but IDW does not. IDW seems to strengthen the stronger and weaken the weaker.

as for 1.73 Afforess fixed the AI overexpansion. it won't run into revolution problems that easy because it checks for financial problems before building new settlers.
 
Darken24 said:
i have to ask where do you see how much WW you have?
Click to expand...

I believe i it is in the list of unhappiness in the hover-over for Happiness/Unhappiness in the city screen.
 
from the description of digitCrusher the WW is an invisible value. but it is directly related to the unhappiness it causes. and i never noticed any unhappy faces in my cities because of a war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Explorers / war weariness
Replies
0
Views
205
tsuneomai
T
C
Enemies remain at war with you after defeating them.
Replies
0
Views
553
ComradeNoot
C
korn469
UI is preventing strategic choices - dozens of turns of negative influence and no explanation of it, nor for war weariness, etc. Firaxis please help!
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Alucard648
Alucard648
Tekamthi
ancient era war/peace
Replies
4
Views
782
Fluffball
F
T
Explorer stacking.
Replies
0
Views
242
tsuneomai
T
Back
Top Bottom